About your Search

20121101
20121130
SHOW
STATION
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
to the level of an fbi investigation. when it reached the cia director, have the fbi investigate the director of of the cia and the president or the attorney general not be notified of it is a dereliction of duty. the president if he was not told should have been told and that to me was somebody really dropping the ball. the other thing makes the whole thing implausible is you have a four, five, six-month investigation whatever it was. nothing comes out, nothing is disclosed. suddenly on election night the fbi announces the investigation is over and they tell general clapper. the next day the white house finds out about it, the next day general petraeus submits his resignation. friday the president accepts the resignation. we find yesterday the fbi raiding the home of paula broadwell. then we find out general allen has been involved in emails with joe kelley, so you have like four or five different events happening in the last seven days when for the prior five or six months nothing happened publicly. megyn: let me jump in. there are so many names that i think the viewers may be confused. the
. testimony earlier today from former cia director general david interests behind closed doors on capitol hill. according to lawmakers who were present, general petraeus insisted during two separate hearings today, on the topic of libya and the terror attack there that killed four americans, that he was clear from the very start that it was a terrorist attack. however, after the cia prepared talking points, they were vetted or at least pass on to several agencies. the line concluding that al qaeda was responsible for this act was taken out of the final version that we believe was ultimately given to the u.n. ambassador, susan rice. why was that done? who did this? catherine herridge is live on capitol hill. reporter: that's right. congressional horses tell fox news that there were changes to the cia talking points and that language of al qaeda affiliated individuals was replace -- replaced, which have the impact of minimizing or downplaying the role of al qaeda and another group, al sharia come on the consulate on 9/11. there was also testimony this week that the intelligence community to thos
: and we begin with a fox news alert on the growing questions over the resignation of cia director david petraeus about whether he and his mistress discussed any confidential intelligence during their affair and whether any intel secrets were ever made public. welcome to "america live," i'm shannon bream in for megyn kelly. petraeus resigned friday after admitting he cheated on his wife, you see her here, a revelation uncovered by an fbi investigation into a series of e-mails sent by his biographer, paula broadwell, who was accused of sending harassing e-mails to another woman. that sparks an investigation that revealed her secret relationship with petraeus. but after looking at a recent speech she gave on the death of four americans in libya, people started wondering whether she and petraeus had shared any classified intel and whether she inadvertently spilled some of those secrets during her remarks. bill gross joins us live, what's your impression of this situation as it's playing out? >> well, it's certainly a very interesting situation, as you say. there's a joke going around on twi
that susan rice gave it her best shot, the cia has taken responsibility for producing that intelligence report which was a week late amended, in essence, where they said it wasn't really exactly what happened, and what happened was that, you know, it was a premeditated attack. but to be clear, susan rice also said in the video you showed that this was a military-style attack. there's never been confusion about that from the beginning. they never said this was a bunch of guys who climbed the fence and jumped over. they said it looked like it came out of a spontaneous demonstration. remember, the guy who conducted the attack himself gave an interview and said he was able to round up the guys because of the anger over the video. so i just think this is making a whole lot about nothing. megyn: i know, okay, okay, let's not retread all the old ground. what simon said there was right about the guy, there was some question about the vid crow in the early days -- video in the early days. but the white house didn't say we're getting conflicting information, we're hearing on the one hand that it
that the cia was allegedly holding libyan militants near the consulate. that is being repeatedly denied by the cia. so many questions to probe. when you have a president who has not had a full-scale news conference since march, a lot of pent-up demand to ask about these things he took some questions in august in mexico, also back in june and july when he was attending a summit. he has not had a full-scale press conference since march. that's a long time. megyn: i think it will be educational to the viewers. as we watch this press conference, it's frustrating for the viewers because they have subjects they wanted your answers to. they may or may not get their topics addressed. it's completely up to the president how far he goes, whether he stays up front with the associated press or keeps on moving back -- we have any idea how long this will be or how much time he will get? reporter: typically it will go for about an hour. what happens is usually goes for about 10 minutes, he talks about what he wants to talk about. it will probably be about the fiscal cliff and working with congress. th
department and cia has a military joint special operations command element to it and has been routinely deployed to assist in investigations. after the u.s.s. cole bombings and the bombings in kenya and tanzania could have helped the fbi gain access to the site in benghazi faster than the 24 days it needed. they say the team would not have done any good. a spokesman gave this explanation. quote the most senior people in government worked on this issue from the moment it happened, that includes the secretary of defense. chairman of the joint chief, secretary of state, national security adviser, et cetera. fox news has learned that u.s. military intelligence was reporting as early as 7:00pm eastern, less than four hours after the attack began that ansar al-sharia carried out the i attack on the consulate. state department cables show that stevens team warned washington that at 6:43 in the morning they had concerns on september 11th that members of the libyan police sent to guard them were photographing the compound, quote, this person was photographing the inside of the u.s. special missi
republicans who say he made blatantly inconsistent statement to them on who changed the cia talking points on the attack. they sit was al qaeda and somebody changed that talking point. there was testimony late last week from former cia director david petraeus who we are told told the lawmakers the initial documents coming out of the cia was this ambush that killed the four americans in benghazi included the word terrorism and cited al qaeda. but someone changed the language. then we had congressman pete king say they questioned james clapper and all the intel heads on capitol hill about this and they all said we don't know who changed it. we don't know. the pressure is now on for answers because now you have got clapper coming out and saying it was me. but clapper was one of the ones saying i have no idea how it was. that led to intel community chairman mike rogers saying he wants an explanation from clapper himself. eli lake is a national security reporter. these weren't small players who went before capitol hill. it was clapper, it was the acting director of the cia, the head of the nati
some heavy hitters to appear for the intel committee including cia chief david petraeus. the director of national intelligence james clapper and matthew whole on who already testified on capitol hill. he was the first one to say this was terrorism. then recordsr reports came out he -- then reports came back he was told to dial that back. the administration was not happy he said it the way he said it. what do you think you will get at in this hearing? >> there is a lot we have to get at. from day one i believe the administration has not been honest with the american people, not honest with the congress. they were saying this was caused by a video. they are saying it is a spontaneous demonstration. clearly this was not the case. despite what the president was trying to claim later on. he denied it was a terrorist attack for 10 days. jay carney repeatedly tried to deny the fact. megyn: we know those facts happened. but when you have access to petraeus, testifying before you, what are you going to ask him? >> exactly was he in contact with the state department that night, what was he told
to say i'm more troubled today knowing, having met with the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice, because it is certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al-qaida were involved in the attack on the embassy, and clearly the impression that was given and the information given to the american people was wrong. megyn: senator kelly ae ayotte will join us live next hour. this will be her first public interview since she sat down with miss rice this morning. what exactly did ambassador rice say behind closed doors? why is senator yea a yeah at anayotte and the other two senators so fired up. this was supposed to be the olive branch. it didn't work. we'll find out what happened when she talks to us live. three weeks removed from election today and suddenly americans are being hit by an on shraugt of neon sthraut of new campaigning. a look at the white house now where press jay carney just began today's briefing. he reiterated that president obama will not sign legislation that extends lower tax rates for the wealthy in particular. that comes as top rep
a kelly ayotte who talked about originally when miss rice came to capitol hill to meet with her the cia acting director who was with her said it was the fbi who changed the talking points to remove the reference to al qaeda having been the ones behind that attack on our consulate. then later in the day they said they got a call from the acting cia director and miss rice saying that was the wrong information. it wasn't the fbi, it was us, the cia who changed the talking points. there is still a question about who specifically did it. has any light been shed on that? >> they are doing internal review of that and putting together a time line exactly who looked at the talking points and made that change to kind of reveal that information. but really the question is who gave those talking points to ambassador rice, who did direct the entire effort of changing the narrative. in the end i think what this is all about is this president and this administration -- somebody running for reelection didn't want the narrative that we killed bin laden and al qaeda was decimated. because al qaeda isn't
needs to get off the dime and what we need is this. cia operatives on the ground to make sure weapons we supply go to grownups who want a rule of law democracy, not to islamists who want a poor man's saudi avaib yeah. megyn: both the president and the vice president in the debate specifically denied that we have shipped any arm that have wound up in the hands of the terrorists who have tried to exploit the power vacuum. the "new york times" reported that's not true, that we haven't done it directly and that we have been shipping the arms to saudi arabia and other countries like qatar and they have been giving them to the bad guise in syria. the freedom fightsers, the assad regime and the terrorists trying to he can moisture this fight and maybe do a power grab. but how is coming in now going to work exactly? if we don't put the cia operatives on the ground who will supervise where our arms wind up? >> if we have no grown up western supervision on the ground i wouldn't send a single bullet into syria. it will be funneled by the turks to the islamists. and this is tragic because the inacti
department, cia, everybody, was what exactly happened. it took two weeks for the intelligence consensus to settle down which is pretty quick as far as these things go. and so we now know what happened. there was clearly confusing stories. >> there seems to have been confusion in the intelligence communities. and the state department, i don't know. the state department says that stuff about the video didn't come from us. that was not our conclusion. they watched it unfold realtime and realtime apparently concluded this was an act of terror. there are still so 15-minute questions. >> that's what the president said the day after it happened. megyn: even though he used that term, he declined specifically repeatedly to confirm in the affirmative when he was asked was this terrorism. he kept saying we have to let the facts play out. you can't say by using the term "terrorism questions was saying it was an act of terrorism. you understand why people are confused, right? >> two weeks later at the u.n. he did not mention terrorism but he talked about the youtube video. administration officials t
a double agent, they put that whole family at risk. they leaked information about a cia operative with the israelis to leak information from iran. it makes the president look like a strong decisive commander-in-chief. is it much of a stretch to think that the same people will withhold information from keeping him looking bad? megyn: some on the other side of the aisle from you in the senate and over in the house, including adam smith a democrat have come out and said, look she came out and she said that this was a spontaneous demonstration, that it was not preplanned, but they say why can't it have been both a spontaneous demonstration and a terrorist attack? why couldn't what she was saying be technically true that it was spontaneous but it was a spontaneous act by a bunch of terrorists? >> well, why was the consulate left open after months of urging that we need more moreno reinforcements. i blame the president for allowing the consulate to stay open after the british closed theirs and the red cross left. there were multiple attacks one in april and one in june. multiple warning
on this network. we know the cia two hours into the attack that it was an al qaeda terrorist attack. we know the white house had drone footage coming to the situation room. we know the department of state, we know all of these different entities were aware of it much earlier than what had been initially indicated by susan rice. then five days later. five days later she goes on five national shows with -- if not intentionally, then the biggest bunch of mishandled information we have seen in foreign policy in quite some time. whether she purposely did it or not, she gave misleading information to the american people. the question is did she do it on purpose. rick: this is why so many republicans think it doesn't pass the smell test. she was out there saying what she was saying. now she is blaming that on the information given to her about it intel communities. but we know from david petraeus' testimony that he knew within a couple hoirts was a terror attack. >> the same republican lawmakers were vigorously defending another then likely nominee for secretary of state with the last name rice whe
that. then they call back later and say, forget that, it was us, it was the cia. >> it's like the keystone cops. in the wizard of oz goes the scarecrow goes like this. which way did it go. each pointing in another direction. whether it's the keystone cops and it's shear incompetence, or something else is going on here to me as an american it's not -- we don't even knotphao*eub was e f.b.i. wasn't on site for three weeks. megyn: great to see you. dick durbin will talk about income dave repbgsin differentials in this country. we'll talk about it. megyn: some are calling it the scariest prank ever but it also may be the funnist. however, in between the laughs and the gasps are horror there is a real question about whether this brazilian tv show crossed a legal line with its ghost in an elevator prank. watch. ♪ [screaming] [laughter] megyn: everyone here thinks it's funny, but the question is, is it legal? there could be potential liability here, and we will debate it in today's "kelly's court," i'm taking your tweets on it, follow me@megyn kelly in between now and the court. th
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)